Vignesh v. State Rep., By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Vignesh S/o.Balakumar, No.8/104 , Vellalar Street, First Floor, Chinnapanicherry, Chennai-600 122.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep., by The Inspector of Police, T-14 Mangadu Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

In Crime No.841 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of the petitioner arrest in Crime No.841/2025, for an alleged offence U/s.296(b), 351(2), of BNS, r/w 75,87 of JJ Act, Crime no 841/2025, on the file of the respondent and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.D.Raja For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 351(2) of BNS r/w 75, 87 of JJ Act, in Crime No.841 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's brother is employed abroad and that his wife, Junath, is allegedly having an illicit relationship with the petitioner, who runs a Xerox shop at Mangadu. It is further alleged that on 27.08.2025, when Junath visited the shop along with her child, the petitioner assaulted the child, causing a fracture, and criminally threatened her. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would fervently submit that this being an anticipatory bail application and that A1 has already been granted bail, the same parity has to be considered in favour of the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police would strongly oppose the petition on the ground that A1 and A2 are in live in a relationship and, since the child aged about 3 years caused disturbance

to them, they assaulted the child and caused a grievous injury of fracture. It was further submitted that they attempted to present themselves before the neighbours by stating that such injury had occurred due to a fall from the bed.

5. In such circumstances, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, it would send a wrong message to society. Therefore, considering the gravity and nature of the offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 04-03-2026 cda To 1.The Inspector of Police, T-14 Mangadu Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

cda 04-03-2026